Hi Suanming,
> -Original Message-
> From: Suanming Mou
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 3:50 AM
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: make rte_flow API thread safe
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ajit Khaparde
> > S
> > +static inline void
> > +flow_lock(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>
> Maybe change the name to flow_safe_enter
> Since this function doesn't always lock.
I feel fts_enter() sounds better.
>
> > +{
> > + if (!(dev->data->dev_flags &
> > RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE))
> > + pthread
ject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: make rte_flow API thread
> safe
>
> > > +static inline void
> > > +flow_lock(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >
> > Maybe change the name to flow_safe_enter
> > Since this function doesn't always lock.
> I fee
Hi Suanming,
PSB,
Best,
Ori
> -Original Message-
> From: Suanming Mou
> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ethdev: make rte_flow API thread safe
>
> Currently, the rte_flow functions are not defined as thread safe.
> DPDK applications either call the functions in single thread or add
> locks aroun
Currently, the rte_flow functions are not defined as thread safe.
DPDK applications either call the functions in single thread or add
locks around the functions for the critical section.
For PMDs support the flow operations thread safe natively, the
redundant protection in application hurts the pe
5 matches
Mail list logo
